That “anti-gay” law that got veto’ed out in Arizona when the RINO party decided to run for the hills in the face of progressive socialist mau-mauing. Again. That bill. Yes, you know which one I’m talking about. The one designed to protect business owners from being sued out of business for refusing to violate their religious beliefs. Yeah, the one that was worse than the Holocaust, according to progressive socialists and the wobble-kneed “conservatives” clutching their pearls.

We were for it, we are for it, and we continue to be for it.

And those flaming hypocrites who are against it will, we’re afraid, have to keep their yaps shut when we sue a Jewish diner out of business for refusing to serve us up a delicious BLT. With extra bacon. And a side of bacon milkshake. Gotta have dairy AND meat at the same time, dontcha know? Don’t be a Nazi now, rabbi Apfelstein. Make us a damn sammich, already!

Similarly, they’ll have to keep mum when we sue a muslim photographer out of business for refusing to record our upcoming bestiality pr0n flick involving, of course, dogs. And pigs. And throw in a bunch of nude people covered in bacon screaming “fuck Mohamhead” every 10 seconds. He’d damn well BETTER take my money and get right on filming, because otherwise he’d be worse than the Nazis.

Of course we would never actually DO such a thing because, well, we’re not a flaming fucktard. We’d either eat a yummy kosher sandwich or find a progressive socialist cameraman/womyn. No, we wouldn’t. Because the progtard would insist on taking part as an extra. But we digress.

But we’re sure that the gay couple, against whom we have no ill feelings other than their typical progressive socialist urge to destroy businesses and livelihoods in any way possible, but that has nothing to do with their sexuality, just didn’t have any alternatives. As we all know, there is only one baker of wedding cakes in all of Arizona. Well, we know now. Or else all of the opponents of the bill are a bunch of puling prick fluffers. Or cuntmuffins. We’re an equal opportunity offender. With an IQ of approximately 12.

“But, but… the DISCRIMINATION!”

Yeah. What about it? Ever heard of “freedom of association?” It’s a quaint old concept that used to mean a lot to people otherwise claiming to be conservative/libertarian. But obviously not anymore. At least not where certain groups are being discriminated against. We doubt that those same “conservative/libertarians” will be flocking around our banner when we sue our local municipality for discriminating against us by refusing us permission to use the women’s showers at the public pool.

No. That’s not different. And if you had a shred of intellectual integrity you would even be able to admit it. Try it one day. It’s quite… refreshing.

“But, but… then you could discriminate against blacks as well!”

Sure. And His Imperial Majesty would be not merely attending but hosting a victory party when your miserable racist self went out of business shortly thereafter. Not due to a lawsuit, but due to a serious and sudden lack of customers. You know, the way it used to be. Be an asshole, be treated like an asshole.

Whatever.

Just keep in mind this moment when they come gunning for YOU when YOU offend whatever the hottest protected group at the time’s feelings.

32 comments

You know, I just love how the progs want to “force” association with whomever/whatever THEY want, but G_d help your soul if you try to force something like, uh, I don’t know, RELIGION, FREEDOM of actual thought (thinking for yourself, not the “approved party line”), or just wanting to be left the frack alone! It is almost enough to make you think that there is a plan afoot. Where the hell did my wife put my tinfoil hat at, it seems to have fallen off. Reckon I need to screw it on tighter…..

I was beginning to manage a bit of respect for Brewer (even though she is a politician) but her veto just stuck in my craw. As our Dear Leader pointed out, the worthless twunt caved in to outside forces (or never had any intent of backing up her rhetoric after the going got rough) and vetoed the bill.

Isn’t it amazing how 10-15% percent of the population can lead the rest around by the nose?

Yielding to pressures reminiscent of Tony Soprano, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed Arizona’s new conscience law, the one that protected people of faith from having to provide services to gay and lesbian couples who wanted a wedding cake, a commemorative photo album, a gossamer bridal gown or a jazzy band. The violent pushback against the law shows just how hollow that “your religious beliefs are safe” promise really is. A law that would have simply permitted private business owners to refuse to provide services that violated deeply held religious principles was called a subversive attempt to codify bigotry.

You just knew that when the Supreme Court dismantled part of the Defense of Marriage Act last year, and some states took up the crusade by passing laws to legalize gay nuptials, any hint of opposition would be labeled bigotry.

But discrimination, hurtful as it can often be, is not necessarily illegal. It is also not necessarily bigotry. We make exceptions all the time for those who have certain spiritual “do not cross” lines, like the Quakers who were excused from combat duty because of their pacifism.

This was not about legal bars to same-sex marriage. This was about protecting someone against a lawsuit if he refused to bake a wedding cake. Telling people that they can’t get married is very different from telling them that you won’t celebrate their union. Not everyone has to like you, not everyone has to agree with you and not everyone has to serve you.

We cannot legislate against hurt feelings. We can only hope that people learn to accept one another. Until then, no one should be compelled to choose between a courthouse bench and a wooden pew.

I wonder when they Gay Lobby will start forcing churches, such as the Catholic Church, to perform same sex marriages? That is one of their goals, but I don’t think they are considering the backlash if they attempt it.

And again, I ask… What happened to “Management reserves the right to refuse service to ANYONE”? Said right to be exercised with no explanation why. It’s a right. Period. End. Full stop. Kinda like the answer to “Why do you carry a gun”? It’s my right.

I, being the OWNER, should be able to run my property as I see fit, and if I want to refuse service to, say, Phreddie the Phucktard Phelps or some dirty raggedy communist just back from an anti-capitalist protest, it is MY RIGHT to tell them (possibly even nicely, based on the blood percentage in my vodka stream) to go pound sand. So, that law is basically a private property rights violation. Which is a much broader encroachment on freedom than just messing with someone’s religious beliefs or absence thereof. It fucks with the one thing the prosperity and success and even liberty in this country were based on– PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
There is NO private property if a bureaucrat can come in and tell you whom your business should cater to. It should not matter WHY the owner refused service– only that is was his right to do so. Welcome to fascism, Komrades and Komradettes. We don’t own SHIT.

Oh, and I should have added that I am one of those eeeeeviiillll heathen libertarians. Non-religious, and even (OMG!!) “pro-ghey” in a sense that it is honestly none of my fucking business if Joe and Moe or Mary and Jane fall in love, decide to bang each other, and shack up. If they are adults capable of informed consent who cares what they do with each other? Yet, I absolutely and unequivocally object to that law. Because, like I said above, it is a much bigger problem than someone’s religious doctrine or their bedroom/kitchen counter/livingroom chandelier practices.

Worse, the flight’s quiet hero who comes to the aid of the protagonist, thereby saving the day, is a Muslim doctor. (Oh, the irony, that Al Qaeda’s number one is Ayman Al Zawahiri, a doctor. And that six of the Glasgow bombing plot were….Muslim doctors. Hollywood likes to serve up its teachable moments cold.)

so if we’re all going to be inclusive and kumbaya now does that mean the “No Firearms” signs must come down too?

You’d think that would be the case, since now your property is not your own and a bureaucrat can come stomping in and FORCE you to be all-equal, all-inclusive, all the time. But, with our pesky habit of logical thinking, we tend to forget that according to our bureaucracy, only SOME animals are more equal than others. So, GUNZ=BAD still stands, because guns, like private property, are icky and scawwy and eeeeeviiillll.

The veto of this legislation was probably not because of any Pro gay rights protest outside the state of Arizona. I get the sense that the legislation was vetoed because our governor did not feel it was necessary to outline what the First Amendment already States. It was not the bureaucrats that have told businesses that they must cater to people that they disagree with. It has been the black robed tyrants in the courts that have imposed these unconstitutional mandates on private property owners.

if I was a baker and told by the court I had to bake a cake for a gay couples wedding ceremony you can bet that cake would contain a good deal of dog feces, topped with a horse semen frosting and two clown caricatures of gay couples on top.

If they can figure out a way to stop the aging process around age 12, the imams will lead the charge for polygamous gay marriages. But so long as the sex act doesn’t involve buggering small children or livestock, they’re dead set agin it.

Isn’t forcing someone to work for you against their will (like forcing some guy to bake you a cake, for instance) have a specific term? I think it sounds something like “slavery”…

Oh, and why would you want to let someone who hates you bake you your cake? And why would you insist on giving money to someone who hates you? There is so much STOOPID there, I have not even really started to dig it ALL up yet. Not sure I want to. There is a reason I do not go marching into a Muslim-owned shop in my micro-miniskirt and sky-high Louboutin heels and demand 5 pounds of bacon and a gallon of vodka, then turn around and sue the owners when they rightfully tell me to get the hell out. And no, the reason I would not do it is NOT because I give a fuck about their (or anyone else’s) religion or am scared of them because they might behead me (I rarely go out unarmed, Akhmed is in for a hell of a fight). It’s because these people own the fucking shop, and I would be violating their right of ownership by being there when they do not want me there. See, people fucked up when they replaced “Life, Liberty and Property” with “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness”, because to some, “pursuit” of happiness means forcing you at the point of a gun to provide whatever it is they demand and believe will make them happy.
Nowadays, it’s all about FEEEEEWIIINGGS. But not EVERYONE’s feelings, because the owner’s feelings obviously don’t matter, as far as politicians are concerned. It’s always just the feelings of those whom the pigs in charge favor at the moment because the favored group can be used in some way or another. It is yet another “divide and conquer” bullshit tactic in order to piss people off and pit them against each other, because then they become ever so much easier to control.
Honestly, I do not know why this crap pissed me off so much, but maybe because unlike people who only pay lip service to rights and liberty I actually take those ideas seriously. People are free to say No. Saying No does not equal aggression. My refusal to bake you a cake does not equal my punching you in the nuts. Besides, I charge extra for nut-punches.
OK, rant over now.

Pope Francis is noodling around with the idea of tolerating “civil unions.”

I honestly don’t see a problem there, no matter how much the ProgNazi press tries to interpret that as “the Pope is OK with treating the Bible as a buffet.”

All he’s saying is what all true Christians have been saying since day one: Hate the sin, love the sinner. All he’s saying is that if homosexuals want to live as partners, then that’s between them and G-d. He’s NOT saying that the Church endorses such behavior, much less saying that “civil unions” are the same as marriages.

Because they aren’t. They never will be. But there is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that you can’t tolerate the existence of unions. Tolerance is not the same as endorsement. I tolerate lots of shit as long as it doesn’t violate my beliefs as in “forces me to accept it as OK”, but that doesn’t mean that I embrace it.

I, as a Christian, see absolutely no reason to outlaw homosexuality as long as it doesn’t force ME to be one or to even clap my hands and consider it “normal”, because it isn’t. I don’t really understand why the Holy Father stating the same thing is controversial.Emperor Misha I recently posted..Allll-RIGHTY Then…

I, as a Christian, see absolutely no reason to outlaw homosexuality as long as it doesn’t force ME to be one or to even clap my hands and consider it “normal”, because it isn’t.

That’s the point. They WANT to make everyone homosexual or at least admit it’s normal.
Deep down they know it isn’t and for one simple reason.
homosexuality isn’t a survival trait for the race. (Human) True humorlesssexuals do not reproduce so their genes are removed from the pool.

No matter how “tolerant” you may be, there is always that twinge of revulsion when someone says they are gay. It might pass in a nanosecond, but it’s there.

And those flaming hypocrites who are against it will, we’re afraid, have to keep their yaps shut when we sue a Jewish diner out of business for refusing to serve us up a delicious BLT. With extra bacon. And a side of bacon milkshake. Gotta have dairy AND meat at the same time, dontcha know? Don’t be a Nazi now, rabbi Apfelstein. Make us a damn sammich, already!

Actually if said Jewish diner was on the ball, your delicious BLT, extra bacon, and bacon milkshake would be served with a smile.

if I was a baker and told by the court I had to bake a cake for a gay couples wedding ceremony you can bet that cake would contain a good deal of dog feces, topped with a horse semen frosting and two clown caricatures of gay couples on top.

Damn I wish there were a “like” button. And a whole BUNCH of others beyond this one. I always thought we were supposed to be a “free market capitalist” society? Under that, you don’t want to do something for somebody, you don’t have to. Conversely, you don’t want to buy some particular one’s whatever, you don’t have to. I always thought that was how that worked anyway.LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman, and…wait just a damn minute here

My take on all this is, I don’t give a happy rat’s ass who you are, what you are, who you bang, who bangs you, what you believe, disbelieve, or what “victim of the week” club you belong to. If you want something done….

DO IT YOUR OWN DAMN SELF. Go buy a box of Betty Crocker and Martha Stewart it yourselves. Buy some 2×4′s and Bob Villa to your hearts content. Instead of playing that very old shitty victim card, just YouTube whatever you need done and do it yourselves. At least you get some self esteem points out of it and you don’t have to make an ass out of yourself trying to force someone else to do it for you.